[cma-l] CMA Charter - proposed revision

[Steve Buckley]

Dear Phil and all

I have been through the original and the latest version of the 
proposed redraft of the CMA Charter and have made some detailed 
comments (below and in the attached matrix). Before coming to these I 
think it is worth sharing a little of our history.

The first 'Community Broadcasting Charter' in the UK was drawn up by 
the Community Communications Group (ComCom) in 1979, before even my 
time in this great movement of ours. At the founding conference of 
the CMA (then called the Community Radio Association), held in 
Sheffield in 1983, a revised version was presented (by Simon 
Partridge) and was debated and adopted as the CRA Code of Practice.

In 1994 an international working group was set up to develop a 
European Community Radio Charter under the auspices of the first 
AMARC Pan European Conference of Community Radio Broadcasters. The 
working group was led by Jack Byrne, a veteran of the Irish community 
radio movement. I was closely involved in the final drafting. The CRA 
Code of Practice was a key reference document but the final version 
drew on many other sources and was a carefully crafted compromise 
that reflected the diversity of our movement at the international 
level. It was debated, amended and adopted at the European conference 
the same year, the first such international charter for our sector.

The European Charter has become an international standard setting 
document. It was later incorporated into the Irish regulatory 
guidelines on community radio and it was adopted by the CMA in 1996 
as a new Charter for the UK community media sector, with one 
amendment - replacing references to 'radio' with the word 'media'. It 
has also been published as a reference point in one of Ofcom's 
reports on the sector.

I have no doubt that 15 years on there is a good case for revisiting 
this and indeed updating it where necessary. One of the major 
challenges is certainly to respond to the rise of social media 
operating on corporate platforms like Facebook and YouTube.

My point, in recalling its history, is that the Charter is a defining 
pillar of our movement in the UK and internationally. As such, a 
review probably requires more than 7 days of discussion on an email 
list, including teasing out the real issues to be reviewed.

In reviewing the draft that you have circulated it seems to me there 
are some basic conceptual confusions about the purpose of the charter 
and to whom it is addressed.

There are also a number of amendments proposed which have little to 
do with the changing external context, but seem more likely to 
reflect individual preferences of the drafters on some rather basic 
issues. Since the amendments are not accompanied by any contextual 
explanation one can only guess at the reasoning behind them.

Below is a section by section comment on the draft (the numbering is 
based on the existing version, and not the new draft which doesn't 
directly correspond.).

I trust there will also be a proper debate this at the AGM, either to 
put in train a more comprehensive review process, or to debate the 
amendments line by line.

Best wishes

Steve

//
Comments on proposed revision of the CMA Community Media Charter

Preamble:
There are four elements to the preamble in the current Charter: (1) 
it is rooted in international human rights law and standards; (2) it 
recognizes there is no single blueprint; (3) it frames the Charter as 
objectives for community media to strive for; and (4) it addresses 
community media as forms of social organisation.

The proposed draft starts instead with a definition of community 
media not as a form of social organisation, but rather as a form of 
content ('sourced and produced by' etc) that promotes social, 
cultural and economic development. It then goes on to address 
individuals ('practitioners and supporters'). This creates a 
conceptual confusion since most of the following elements of the 
proposed draft still appear directed at social organizations rather 
than at individual content producers.

The proposed changes to the preamble thus beg the question as to what 
purpose the re-drafters have in mind. Is it intended (as with the 
current version) as a self-regulatory instrument for organizations, 
or is it a code of practice to guide individual behaviour of content 
producers? Surely the CMA's role should be to provide guidance to 
member organizations. It is for community media organizations 
themselves to establish their policies and codes of practice for 
their individual content producers.

It would be better to retain the existing preamble or to review the 
new draft preamble entirely. I would strongly recommend to retain the 
opening references in the current preamble - to freedom of expression 
etc (first para) - and to retain the core focus on the Charter as a 
form of self regulatory code for community media organisations.

More debate may be needed on community media as forms of social 
organisation and in relation to social media as platforms for citizen 
content and communications.

Objective 1:
The proposed draft inserts a rather specific content obligation into 
what is otherwise a definition of high level objectives. This is not 
a helpful addition.

Objective 2:
The inclusion of 'enhance skills and personal development' and 
'engagement' are both good and are consistent with the existing terms 
of this objective. The addition of 'ensure that local and community 
interests are registered in the regulation of broadcast services and 
communications' looks out of place in this Charter. Although it is an 
important policy goal it is surely the purpose of the CMA and other 
sector bodies to pursue this.

Objective 3:
The proposed draft represents a substantial weakening of aspiration, 
since 'actively involved' can be very tokenistic compared to 
ownership and other forms of effective accountability. It would be 
better to strengthen the current version.

Objective 4:
The addition of 'local and national' is unnecessary and limiting. For 
example, community media should also be independent of overseas governments.

Objective 5:
The commitment to provision of facilities etc is good but the removal 
of the provision of a right of access represents a weakening of 
aspiration in the Charter. It is better to retain 'a right of access'.

Objective 6:
This objective (on fair reporting and right of reply) has been 
removed in its entirety in the proposed draft. It should not be. It 
is an important element in any self regulatory code for community 
media, one which distinguishes the sector from Fox News style 
journalism and its role in the abandonment of the fairness doctrine.

Objective 7:
The not for profit definition has always been an area of contention 
and extensive debate. The proposed drafting is not an improvement. It 
is ambiguously worded and not consistent with the statutory 
definition achieved in the UK for community radio.

Objective 8:
The proposed draft removes reference to the right of paid workers to 
join a trade union and for staff and volunteers to have satisfactory 
working conditions. Was this deleted by the Tory wing of the CMA? The 
amendment should be rejected.

Objective 9:
The addition of 'promote equality' and 'transparent' is good.

Objective 10:
The current version set much higher level aspirations than the 
proposed draft, particularly in making reference to widely recognized 
international policy goals and implying international cooperation and exchange.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CM Charter Review.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 70144 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20110521/ba62a500/attachment.obj>